Jump to content

Fossilized creature or case of Pareidolia?


Recommended Posts

Good morning, please take a look at this artifact I discovered a few weeks ago and help me identify if this is something other than a rock with unique features and patterns.  I have spent FAR too much time closely inspecting it and I'm convienced that it is something other than a naturally forming rock.  

 

Altough I'm not an expert in geology, I have collected thousands upon thousands of artifacts which is one of the reasons this one clearly stood out to me. The color, shape, pattern, and texture is very distinct.  

 

Please note that this artifact is not whole and has been broken in half. 

 

The photos are top down.  What I see is a fossilized creature curled up in what could be an egg or borrow.  It looks to be reptillian based off the patten of what could be the underbelly on one side of the fossil and the shape of the what I believe woud be the snout of the head (again it has been partially broken off). Also, there seems to be a long tail that wraps around the circumfrence of the unit and centered in the middle is the snout/head.  When carefully observing the interior of where the break occurred, there apprears to be the spinal column (color differentation) originating from the head that may have lead to the torso as well as part of the torso.  Lastly, there appears to be some digits to a claw (encircled).

 

If anybody want to contact me for additional details, please don't hesitate. 

 

IMG_8426.jpg

IMG_8383.jpeg

IMG_8383.jpg

IMG_8368.jpg

IMG_8430.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

As to your thoughts that it could be something reptilian curled up--that I can answer. You are indeed correct (that it is a great example of pareidolia, sorry). ;)

 

This item could be simply a wild concretion and purely geological. Alternatively, it could contain some something of a fossil nature and I'm only saying that because I am not familiar with the fossil possibilities of Texas. Other members with more experience in what is possible to find in Texas (both fossil and geological "fakers") will likely soon chime in. @JohnJ

 

It's a cool looking piece. I'd definitely have picked it up. I have several interesting "non-fossils" in my collection that I've found while out hunting for fossils.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Ken.  Thank you for weighing in.  I sincerely hope others take a good look and provide honest and constructive feedback.  This will be my only and last attempt to defend my find. I find it difficult to explain the find through 4 or 5 photographs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also collected numerous artifacts over the years.  I don't see any evidence this is an artifact or a fossil.  I think this is a case of the second part of your topic title.

 

This piece reminds me of differential erosion on a chert nodule or chalcedony/jasper nodule.  In other words, all the cool looking swirls seen in some polished stones have eroded differently due to relative hardness and left these patterns in relief.

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that we see ID requests for "embryos" on a fairly regular basis. Soft tissue does not fossilize in a way that "embryos" are preserved in the way that the hopeful finders are seeing them. Usually, the "embryos" tend to be in large "T-rex eggs" found in someone's back yard that without fail are always simply large concretions (or occasionally only rounded river rocks) that have cracked open to reveal an interesting texture or fracture pattern. This piece at least has something going on inside--it may be purely geological but without being familiar with the local rocks I'm unwilling to discount that it is something outside of my bailiwick. Hopefully, some in-state members will spot this post and be able to give more information as to what it may be.

 

The answer may turn out to be "geologic" or someone may recognize it and provide a more detailed answer. The only thing I can say for sure is that "reptile embryo" will not be the consensus. The intriguing pattern inside this rock is activating your pareidolia circuits. ;) Fossil hunters use pattern recognition as part of their search image that allows them to spot things like ammonites or mosasaur teeth in creeks and without this we'd never find anything that wasn't fully displayed out on a pedestal out in the field. Those same neural circuits can lead to all sorts of false positives. What is needed to temper that is the knowledge of what local fossils look like and what is possible by the fossilization process. Pareidolia can produce some amazing optical illusions but we must recognize them for what they are. :)

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

218.jpg

  • I found this Informative 8
  • Enjoyed 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

I have also collected numerous artifacts over the years.  I don't see any evidence this is an artifact or a fossil.  I think this is a case of the second part of your topic title.

 

This piece reminds me of differential erosion on a chert nodule or chalcedony/jasper nodule.  In other words, all the cool looking swirls seen in some polished stones have eroded differently due to relative hardness and left these patterns in relief.

Thank you John.  I really apprecaite your feedback.  I think you would agree, the chances of this object eroding perfectly flat on both sides is extremely unlikely. I belive it's not a result of natural erosion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, digit said:

Keep in mind that we see ID requests for "embryos" on a fairly regular basis. Soft tissue does not fossilize in a way that "embryos" are preserved in the way that the hopeful finders are seeing them. Usually, the "embryos" tend to be in large "T-rex eggs" found in someone's back yard that without fail are always simply large concretions (or occasionally only rounded river rocks) that have cracked open to reveal an interesting texture or fracture pattern. This piece at least has something going on inside--it may be purely geological but without being familiar with the local rocks I'm unwilling to discount that it is something outside of my bailiwick. Hopefully, some in-state members will spot this post and be able to give more information as to what it may be.

 

The answer may turn out to be "geologic" or someone may recognize it and provide a more detailed answer. The only thing I can say for sure is that "reptile embryo" will not be the consensus. The intriguing pattern inside this rock is activating your pareidolia circuits. ;) Fossil hunters use pattern recognition as part of their search image that allows them to spot things like ammonites or mosasaur teeth in creeks and without this we'd never find anything that wasn't fully displayed out on a pedestal out in the field. Those same neural circuits can lead to all sorts of false positives. What is needed to temper that is the knowledge of what local fossils look like and what is possible by the fossilization process. Pareidolia can produce some amazing optical illusions but we must recognize them for what they are. :)

 

Cheers.

-Ken

218.jpg

Hey Ken,  very insightful perspective and I love the photograph!  I'm not 100% convienced it is a embryo as I mentioned, this could be a burrow of some sort.  Also, I don't come accross many fossils in the area I search. It's an area abundant in native american artifacts.  And I believe this piece was intentionaly modified by others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19

I disagree, respectfully.

The chances of things eroding to being flat on both sides is quite high, actually. Many sedimentary stones can cleave quite nicely, as can broken rocks of some other varieties. 

Please take into consideration that rocks break through many different factors.

Falling, freezing, thawing, tumbling in rivers/streams/oceans. 

I have often seen cobbles of sedimentary stone looking like a sliced loaf of bread in streams. Stuck in the stream bottom, but split into several evenly spaced flat sections. 

It happens. 

 

Mother nature can do some strange stuff.

 

Have a look at this thread.

  • I found this Informative 3
  • I Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It might help to know a bit more about the general location in which the item was found.  This would help us to be able to determine the age of the formation and know more about the possible fauna from that period to compare to your find.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dubs said:

And I believe this piece was intentionally modified by others. 

I see no evidence of that. The artifacts that I am familiar with are either functional/utilitarian like blades, scrapers, hammer stones or artistic/symbolic like effigies, beads, necklace pendants. This piece looks to have no function as a tool and shows no symmetry or symbology to serve as an artistic artifact.

 

Native American artifacts are problematic here in Florida. Fossil hunters are not allowed to keep artifacts discovered while hunting for fossils on public lands so we can only keep things we find on private lands (with permission, of course). I am fascinated by the relics left by long since vanished peoples but have little experience with them other than the pieces I see in museums or online. Perhaps, you could show us (in the separate artifacts section of this forum) your other finds from the area.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

I disagree, respectfully.

The chances of things eroding to being flat on both sides is quite high, actually. Many sedimentary stones can cleave quite nicely, as can broken rocks of some other varieties. 

Please take into consideration that rocks break through many different factors.

Falling, freezing, thawing, tumbling in rivers/streams/oceans. 

I have often seen cobbles of sedimentary stone looking like a sliced loaf of bread in streams. Stuck in the stream bottom, but split into several evenly spaced flat sections. 

It happens. 

 

Mother nature can do some strange stuff.

 

Have a look at this thread.

Thank you. I intend to keep a very open mind about the find and what it could be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, grandpa said:

It might help to know a bit more about the general location in which the item was found.  This would help us to be able to determine the age of the formation and know more about the possible fauna from that period to compare to your find.

The item was discovered north of Houston along the banks of the West San Jancinto river.  I strongly suspect that its an area not known for fossils as I rarely come accross them.  I suspect it originated somewhere else and was brought to this location. I know that ventures into conspircy land but, yea it's one explanation on how it got there.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sorry but as an experienced artifact hunter and a novice fossil collector I gotta go with natural eroded rock......

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Dubs said:

Hey Ken.  Thank you for weighing in.  I sincerely hope others take a good look and provide honest and constructive feedback.  This will be my only and last attempt to defend my find. I find it difficult to explain the find through 4 or 5 photographs.  

I just had a good look and here is my honest and constructive feedback.  It is pareidolia.  

There is nothing fossily about it, even less small creature curled up.  I say this as a guy who has collected a lot of fossils, including a few of small creatures curled up.  There are no bones visible in your rock.  Reptile fossils are bones.  Not mummified critters.  

We see a lot of things like this and folks who do not believe our analysis.  As you are an expert in artifacts, we like to think we are experts in fossils.  At least some of us are, including the two folks who have already replied.  

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Randyw said:

I’m sorry but as an experienced artifact hunter and a novice fossil collector I gotta go with natural eroded rock......

I respect your opinion.  Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jpc said:

 

I just had a good look and here is my honest and constructive feedback.  It is pareidolia.  

There is nothing fossily about it, even less small creature curled up.  I say this as a guy who has collected a lot of fossils, including a few of small creatures curled up.  There are no bones visible in your rock.  Reptile fossils are bones.  Not mummified critters.  

We see a lot of things like this and folks who do not believe our analysis.  As you are an expert in artifacts, we like to think we are experts in fossils.  At least some of us are, including the two folks who have already replied.  

There would be no bones if it was soft tissue. Right?  Having said that. I respect your constructive feedback and it seems to be the consensus of the experts on this matter on this thread. Having said that, I think pareidolia is a facinating phenonemon and I still see what I see. 

 

Thank you all for weighing in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is sadly not a fossilised creature but one of the best  example of pareidolia imagery in a stone I seen, that is except Ken’s goofy faced photo of some pebbles. Worth keeping I think 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dubs said:

There would be no bones if it was soft tissue. Right?

Right but soft tissue rarely fossilizes.  When I say rarely, I mean almost never.  The 'soft-tissue' in your rock does not look like a lizard to me or others, so I think pareidolia is the answer.  Please show us how you see a critter in your rock.  Where is the head?  Where are the eyes? Mouth?  legs?  I see concentric layers that have been eroded away leaving a view of a few concentric layers curling around each other rather than a creature.

 

The whole soft tissue issue is an extraordinary claim.  see the quote below from Carl Sagan. 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bobby Rico said:

This is sadly not a fossilised creature but one of the best  example of pareidolia imagery in a stone I seen, that is except Ken’s goofy faced photo of some pebbles. Worth keeping I think 

Now that's funny!

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jpc said:

Right but soft tissue rarely fossilizes.  When I say rarely, I mean almost never.  The 'soft-tissue' in your rock does not look like a lizard to me or others, so I think pareidolia is the answer.  Please show us how you see a critter in your rock.  Where is the head?  Where are the eyes? Mouth?  legs?  I see concentric layers that have been eroded away leaving a view of a few concentric layers curling around each other rather than a creature.

 

The whole soft tissue issue is an extraordinary claim.  see the quote below from Carl Sagan. 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

So just to reinforce that I am a novice at this.  but if you were to tilt the first photo and superimpose it on the artifact that I discovered, the snout portion matches pretty well.  The artifact photograph does not show what appears to the nostrils and or the split and the very top of the skull.  Lastly, on the sides of the snout there appears to be small teeth.  Maybe?

images.jpeg

IMG_8426.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19

But the rock is homogenous. 

No differentiating bone texture. No real skull morphology. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say Maybe? you are answering the question yourself in regards to my quote form Carl Sagan.  I want to see extraordiary evidence, not just a Maybe.  

 

I gotta get back to work.  

 

Several years ago, a guy from the forum drove all the way from Minnesota to Wyoming to show me his turtle egg.  There had been a long discussion about it on this forum and he did not believe any of us.  After he left here, he still did not believe me.  I try to educate folks on this forum, but I have limited patience...

  • I found this Informative 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dubs said:

o just to reinforce that I am a novice at this.  but if you were to tilt the first photo and superimpose it on the artifact that I disc

Yes but it is just a coincidence and combined with the normal human tendency to see faces in abstract forms, definitely not a fossil reptile .

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19

There really is no resemblance beside a very vague outline . 
None of the details match. 

 

IMG_8426.thumb.jpg.7efdd5eb4f3eec2d50a22fb53c183317.jpg

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the snout area from a different angle.  Do you see what I am referring to? It's so difficult for me to believe this is a naturally forming head.  But again, I'm open to me just seeing things.

 

I hope you all can zoom way in to see the details.

IMG_8524.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • digit locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...